On Sat, 14 May 2011 19:57:20 -0400, toobuntu <[email protected]> wrote: > I think what you describe for /etc/local belongs under /usr/local/etc. I > would define /usr/local like you for software not managed by the package > manager but built by the administrator Well but then you run into troubles... namely: If you say, /*/local/ is for not package managed software (which I fully agree), than /*/local does not imply any locality of the data, thus it would be perfectly valid, to have one shared network filesystem /usr, including package managed software (managed on some other machine), an non-package managed software (e.g. also installed on some other macheine).
But if you now put their global config in /usr/etc, this means, that all of them have to share the same config. IMHO, /etc should be really local. Of course I'm aware, that if you actually use remotely installed software (i.e. /usr on NFS or so),.. you'll get a empty /etc at first... but that's something you'll have to deal yourself with). >, and /opt for software not managed > by the package manager and not built by the administrator (e.g. dropbox, > nomachine, vmware *.deb's packaged by third party vendors). That's the wording for a definition of "/opt" I was looking for :D > For local machine configuration that diverges from the package manager's > defaults, do we want to define a best practice? One idea is to leave /etc > in pristine form as the package manager leaves it and to use symlinks from > /usr/etc or /usr/local/etc. In an ideal world that woul be definitely a good idea,... at least if you mean, that software should put their defaults in /usr/etc (or /usr/local/etc)... and only really user-modified config goes to /etc. This would also solve the problems with /usr/etc I've mentioned above. But honestly, I strongly doubt that this will ever happen,... as so many software would have to adapt... Again, I think this would be a clean solution,.. but we could end up in now one adhering anymore to FHS. > Also, I thought the "shared" part of the definition for /usr/share refers > to shared among multiple users of the local machine. The prior discussion > about this seemed to assume it means exported as a network filesystem. Can > we get more clarity about this? I'd rather say this has nothing to do with network sharing and/or user sharing,... but with "shared files" in the sense of architecture independent files (e.g. resource files, and so on). Cheers, chris. _______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
